Dead short pics

Status
Not open for further replies.
O.K. that number looks like ITE EQ8695 ,. in which case that is most likley a used breaker,.. I might be missing something ,...but I fail to see the phase to phase fault:-?
 
M. D. said:
O.K. that number looks like ITE EQ8695 ,. in which case that is most likley a used breaker,.. I might be missing something ,...but I fail to see the phase to phase fault:-?
Click to expand...

The fault is in the wiring. The bus on the panel is set up as A B A B A B. When they split the stranding on the wires, they landed each half of the same wire on a different phase.
 
KevinVost said:
The fault is in the wiring. The bus on the panel is set up as A B A B A B. When they split the stranding on the wires, they landed each half of the same wire on a different phase.
Click to expand...

The breaker is not in an A B A B configuration, it is on an A/A B/B. Each half of the breaker is paired together to feed one of the bus bars.

Look at M.D.s image in post #14. The split wiring is the same as the bus bars in that image.
 
The only way to be sure is for Kevin to post the part number of that breaker so it can be properly identified. Because like it or not, it could be made as either AABB or ABAB and we won't know for sure until we get the scoop on the actual breaker involved.

Regardless, the splitting of the strands (and a few were cut off if you look really close) is hack and reason enough to red-sticker it.
 
mxslick said:
The only way to be sure is for Kevin to post the part number of that breaker so it can be properly identified. Because like it or not, it could be made as either AABB or ABAB and we won't know for sure until we get the scoop on the actual breaker involved.

Regardless, the splitting of the strands (and a few were cut off if you look really close) is hack and reason enough to red-sticker it.
Click to expand...

This job is from a while ago. I don't have access to the equipment anymore. As I remember it, I thought we had the JW ring out the wiring and it showed a short. There have been alot of jobs between that one and now.
 
Okay, Kevin's pic in post 20 clearly shows that the OP is correct, and the breaker is both mis-applied and mis-wired.

It's the bus arrangement, and not the breaker itself, that determines whether it's wired AABB or ABAB.

In this case, it's not connected like the typical 4-body Siemens 200a breaker, it's just plugged onto ABAB bus.

The factory-installed 4-body main in the last pic shows how the factory wires one for standard bus, and not in AABB main use.

The installer should have matched the factory-installed wiring. Actually, he should have found a feed-thru panel.
 
mxslick said:
The only way to be sure is for Kevin to post the part number of that breaker so it can be properly identified. Because like it or not, it could be made as either AABB or ABAB and we won't know for sure until we get the scoop on the actual breaker involved.
Click to expand...
No, this type of 4-pole breaker is four individual bodies. There's no swapping-around of the conductive pathway.

The factory-installed main shows that, and that the second 4-pole installer didn't know what he was doing.
 
M. D. said:
Do you mean like this?,,

img00015541.jpg
Click to expand...

Remember that the load goes straight through. If you plugged in into the buss of a regular panel it would not work out very well. Even worse if its used as a load breaker.
 
LarryFine said:
No, this type of 4-pole breaker is four individual bodies. There's no swapping-around of the conductive pathway.

The factory-installed main shows that, and that the second 4-pole installer didn't know what he was doing.
Click to expand...


Well in that case ,... there is a phase to phase fault :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top